The Most Interesting Job Interview in U.S. History

Brett Kavanaugh: sex, drugs, and the Supreme Court

The Brett Kavanaugh case is raising lots of ethical, political, historical, social, and legal questions all at the same time. Because this blog is about philosophical questions, those are the ones I'll focus on here. I've been following the case closely and see at least two interesting philosophical problems about personhood emerging in this case:

1) Do people change over time? Specific to this case, should the inebriated 17-year-old version of Brett Kavanaugh be taken into consideration when he's applying for a job decades later? How relevant are former versions of ourselves to our present reality? The people running the hearing and the media as well seem to believe it matters a lot. What's problematic about this assumption is that it implies that people are the same, are stable, and integrated selves over time, even long stretches of time. And the reason this assumption is problematic is simply because our society also values therapy, maturation, personal development, even in its extreme form, like born-again Christians, who used to live a faulty or criminal life but now are healthy and happy members of society. So the philosophical question here is, do former versions of ourselves matter in society's current assessment of us as individuals, and if so, why?

2) Can someone rightfully be charged with a crime or ethical misconduct if he or she doesn't have any memory of the event because he or she was extremely inebriated at the time the event occurred? In other words, does there need to be conscious memory of the event, or just the event itself? In this particular case, it's possible that Brett Kavanaugh was in fact the individual who did the things that Dr. Ford claims he did. At first, I believed her story but thought she might have remembered the wrong individual (Brett) as the person. My thinking was simply, how could an esteemed judge lie under oath? But people do surprising things all the time. It is perhaps more likely that Dr. Ford's account is true and that Brett Kavanaugh has no memory of the event because he was blacked out drunk. To him, he's telling the truth. He may even be able to pass a polygraph (lie-detector test) because in his mind, the event Dr. Ford describes, never happened. His brain has no record of the event because brains don't record memories when they're compromised 'Brett Kavanaugh 1980's style'. If my hypothesis is right, then is Kavanaugh still to blame? Yes, of course. But is he lying under oath? This gets a lot trickier.

This case has made me think a lot about the connection between alcohol abuse and sexual assault. In a post I wrote here in 2016, I argued that consent is not the best criterion for sexual activity because if consent is given during an alcohol-induced blackout, it won't be remembered, which causes the victim to believe the sexual act was against his or her will. People in blacked out states are not passed out; they are still walking, talking, laughing, or even driving, but just not remembering any of it the next day, once the alcohol has worn off. That blog post raised an interesting philosophical point and unfortunately, people misunderstood it in every way imaginable (read the comments).

But what I find interesting is that, in the scenario I imagined where consent is given during a blackout and not remembered, many readers were upset and read this as blaming the victim — in other words, they didn't like the idea that actions committed during a blackout still matter. But in the Brett Kavanaugh case, the social reaction is the opposite. If Judge Kavanaugh was in fact blacked out drunk and attacked Dr. Ford, then rather than arguing that society should let him off the hook because he was inebriated and doesn't remember doing it, a good portion of society seems to believe that we should hold him accountable for his actions. We can't have it both ways: either we're still responsible for our actions when we're blacked out drunk or we're not.

1) Do people change over time? Specific to this case, should the inebriated 17-year-old version of Brett Kavanaugh be taken into consideration when he's applying for a job decades later?

This question needs more context -- it doesn't make sense as a stand-alone question. I don't think it would have mattered much if not for Dr. Ford's accusations. A key part of her testimony was that Kavanaugh was "stumbling drunk". Had nobody ever seen Kavanaugh drunk at all, her testimony would have been seriously undermined. But that's not how it's turned out, and Dr. Ford made that accusation BEFORE others commented on Kavanaugh's drunkeness.

wrote:

We can't have it both ways: either we're still responsible for our actions when we're blacked out drunk or we're not.

I think everyone should be held responsible for their behavior when they are black-out drunk. Who else is supposed to pick up the pieces -- your mommy, or other taxpayers, or the victims of your behavior? The exception might be if someone spiked your drink or drugged you otherwise in a way that you were not reasonably aware of. So, combine that with the fact that the situations we're dealing with here often don't have any other witnesses in the room who can be impartial, these can be very difficult situations to sort out.

Leland Keyser, believed to have been identified as one of 5 people at the party, told the committee she, “does not know Kavanaugh and she has no recollection of ever being at a party or gathering where he was present, w/ or w/o Dr. Ford.”

Prosecutor Rachel Mitchell, representing Republican Senators in the hearing, addressing Ford: "Why did your best friend say she never met Kavanaugh & the party did not happen?"

Dr. Ford (literally): "Leland (Keyser) has significant health challenges, and I am happy that she is focusing on herself."

Mitchell's conclusion: Ford's story is inconsistent. Ford has no case.

Leland Keyser, believed to have been identified as one of 5 people at the party, told the committee she, “does not know Kavanaugh and she has no recollection of ever being at a party or gathering where he was present, w/ or w/o Dr. Ford.”

I went to parties I don't remember because I saw nothing happening. When nothing happened, there was nothing memorable, so I can't state nothing happened behind a closed door where others were. This person wasn't even in the room, so how could they know? And Ford told nobody about it at the time, which is very typical. You're not too bright, are you?

wrote:

]Mitchell's conclusion: Ford's story is inconsistent. Ford has no case.

Actually, quite the opposite. It is very consistent and typical of someone who has experienced trauma of that kind. As for not remembering the exact date, heck, I can't remember the exact date my car got totalled about 10 years ago. But I sure remember every emotional detail of the event, EXACTLY just like Ford's testimony.

Again, you're OFF TOPIC here. You're just a partisan hack, and I could recite all the talking points you haven't even come up with. It's boring as all get out.

So, if that's true in her case, she's the exception. Which proves what? The fact remains that in the vast majority of cases for sexual assault against teenagers (especially), it is not reported. Ever heard of the Catholic Church sex abuse scandal? Yeah, a lot of them came forward right away, didn't they? LOL

In fact, if you look at the cases of Harvey Weinstein, Cosby, and others, you see that even the women who came forward were NOT believed, or advised not to make a big thing out of it, and told even by lawyers that it'll be their word against a famous person with a lot of lawyers, and you'll lose and be countersued for defamation -- which is exactly what Trump threatened when he said "I'll sue them all".

wrote:

(but then she wasn't piss-drunk.)

You mean like Kavanaugh?

wrote:

Ford fled after the alleged event, leaving her 'best friend' behind with the alleged groper and his buddies. Possible but improbable.

Actually, very probably, and very typical.

You do seem to be a partisan hack, picking as an ineffective example of an actual assault somebody on the left. Let me guess, you think the accusers of Roy Moore, Trump, Kavanaugh, etc. are all liars, while accusers of Bill Clinton and others on the left are all honest? If so, you're the very definition of a partisan hack.

The fact remains that in the vast majority of cases for sexual assault against teenagers (especially), it is not reported.

If they're not reported, then how can they be counted?

wrote:

If so, you're the very definition of a partisan hack.

Partisan is no insult. It means someone willing to stand for something. You don't have that courage, just mumble something about the Constitution and think it's an argument. But I'll give you one on the house. I believe Karen Monahan, but as of now she hasn't provided the promised video evidence, which means crooked ellison walks.

Dr. Ford's account was not hazy. You're just making that up. She was very detailed about the points that sexual trauma victims remember. But hazy on details like the date, just like I don't remember the date, and not even the month actually, of when my car was totalled over 10 years ago. But I sure remember the details of the event itself.

In fact, if you produce too many details you wouldn't fit the profile of a trauma victim and you might be suspected of having made it up, at least by experts.

wrote:

If they're not reported, then how can they be counted?

What I meant is that it is not reported at the time of the event. Just as in the case of the Catholic Church scandal. In some cases, such as with Weinstein, it was reported, but the police didn't file the report due to lack of evidence and such, or their lawyers told them not to bother because it won't stand up in court. So if you just tell your lawyer, and he tells you it's not worth pursuing, does it count? No, it doesn't get into official records. But as with the Catholic Church abuse scandal, there were other indications, such as undcovered by the Boston "Spotlight Team", by going through Catholic Church records and notations which code for priests who had to attend an internal "education" or "rehab" and were reassigned to different parishes. And they then went forward and aggresively interviewed people who might have been affected and got some information that way. There are many indirect ways to find out what was not counted.

Interesting that you assume that you could never find out from men becuase, I guess you assume that all men who actually did sexually assault are never going to admit it, even on an anonymous survey.

wrote:

Partisan is no insult. It means someone willing to stand for something.

Yeah, standing up for something, but not so much the truth. It's called tribalism. kind of like sports. Your team isn't right or wrong. It's just about winning any way you can. Boring as all get out.

I'm a big fan of " innocent until proven guilty" and the facts of the Ford claim are nil. The left's only chance to save their rule by morally-bankrupt court decrees is to stop Kavanaugh by any mud-slinging necessary. That's all this is about, nothing else.

I'm a big fan of " innocent until proven guilty" and the facts of the Ford claim are nil. The left's only chance to save their rule by morally-bankrupt court decrees is to stop Kavanaugh by any mud-slinging necessary. That's all this is about, nothing else.

Actually, you're not. If someone were applying for a job interview at McDonald's and they have been accused by a number of people of wrongdoing and they had bad recommendations, he would not say "hired" because you have not been proven guilty in a court of law. The Supreme Court is a job interview. It is not a trial to keep you out of jail.

A bad recommendation is one thing, accusing someone of a crime is another. Liar Ford tried the latter.

wrote:

The Supreme Court is a job interview. It is not a trial to keep you out of jail.

Morally-bankrupt leftists were behind the Kavanaugh teardown. Frankly, it was a good thing. Neutral parties saw how low leftists were willing to stoop to keep power. If Kava wasn't WOKE before, he is now.

A bad recommendation is one thing, accusing someone of a crime is another. Liar Ford tried the latter.

Actually, that's just your opinion. And my opinion is based on the fact that in most cases where women tell these kinds of accusations they turn out to be true. The fact that Kavanaugh may be elevated to the Supreme Court doesn't mean that Ford lied. It's like Trump who was elected president in spite of all the women who accused him and in spite of him bragging on the Hollywood Access bus of him doing exactly what he otherwise says he doesn't do.

wrote:

Morally-bankrupt leftists were behind the Kavanaugh teardown.

Sure, the Democrats "used" her, just like the Republicans have used circumstances in many other cases. Both parties do. But the fact remains that in all likelihood everything Dr. Ford said is accurate, and judge Kavanaugh will have an asterisk over his name for a long time.

wrote:

Neutral parties saw how low leftists were willing to stoop to keep power. If Kava wasn't WOKE before, he is now.

There's really no such thing as a neutral party. Whatever a Republican will call a neutral party will be different from what a Democrat will call a neutral party. Isn't that so obvious it's tiresome to even mention?

And my opinion is based on the fact that in most cases where women tell these kinds of accusations they turn out to be true.

INNOCENT until PROVEN GUILTY.

I remember at least 3 exposed liars just from memory, the Duke lacrosse scandal (the liar got no jail time) "Mattress Girl", (victim exonerated by HER texts to him, no punishment for the liar) and lena dunham who claimed to have been raped by "a Republican", later proven a complete fabrication.

Women who lie should be jailed and placed on sex offender registries for life!

You don't catch on too quick, do you? That standard applies when you are about to be deprived of your liberties by going to jail. You are entitled to your freedom until you are proven guilty. You are NOT entitled to a position on the Supreme Court until you are proven guilty. You seem badly confused.

wrote:

I remember at least 3 exposed liars just from memory, the Duke lacrosse scandal (the liar got no jail time)...blah blah blah...

Those were all cases with just ONE accuser. It's extraordinarily rare to have multiple accusers (Kavanaugh, Moore, Trump, Clinton, Weinstein, Moonves,...) with ALL of them lying.

A bad recommendation is one thing, accusing someone of a crime is another.

Well, then, in that case I would definitely move on to the next resume when interviewing for a fast food worker, never mind a SCOTUS appointment for life. Nobody has a right to a fast food job and certainly not a SCOTUS job.

[QuotepLiar Ford tried the latter.[/quote]
Oh, and you know that for sure? You're obviously a fool.

"Partisan is no insult. It means someone willing to stand for something."
In U.S. politics, a partisan is a committed member of a political party or political coalitions. In multi-party systems, the term is used for politicians who strongly support their party's policies and are reluctant to compromise with their political opponents.
It means one is a sheep, a stooge, a non-patriot.
A patriot being a person who vigorously supports their country (not their government or the people in it) and is prepared to defend it against enemies or detractors.

Thank you, Liz Swan, for pointing out two commonsense issues regarding the Kavanaugh case. OF COURSE we change over time, and with maturity comes (at least it used to) wisdom. If we were all to be held perpetually accountable - but never timely prosecuted - for our actions and inactions in high school, our lives would be endless anxiety and embarrassment. You also point out the fatal flaw in the space between responsibility and mental acuity. This is something to ponder. Thank you.

"It is perhaps more likely that Dr. Ford's account is true and that Brett Kavanaugh has no memory of the event because he was blacked out drunk."

Nope. He lied. His credibility was shattered when he lied about varies insignificant things, such as the definitions of "devil's triangle" and "boofing." He also made varies misleading claims. He said that Mark Jude and Ford's friend said it did not happen. Mark Judge and Ford's friend did not say that it did not happened. They said that they have no recollection, which a lot different from it did not happen.

Can people change? Yes, but Kavanaugh mostly like have not. He went under oath and lied to Congress and the American people. He claimed that he is and has always been the person that he is today. For people to change, there need to be motivation. According to him, there is none. He has always been a good Christian.

You also forgot to mention that he claimed he never drink to the point of blacking out. So this means that he either lied about never blacking out or that he did not attempt to rape Ford. The only way that he would truthful is that Ford is mistaken, which as you wrote is unlikely. When the two testimonies are compared. Ford is the more reliable.

"An ex-boyfriend has come forward to say that in six years of dating Ford, she never mentioned a sexual assault, had no fear of flying, lived comfortably in a tiny home with only one front door, once coached a friend on how to take a polygraph, contrary to her sworn testimony -- and also lied about stealing $600 from him."

Can you prove it is really her EX (that alone is an important thing to consider)? The name was redacted, so the senate doesn't even have his name. Now, IF they can prove that he actually is her EX, and not doing this for the simple reason she is a ex, fine. But good luck getting the senate to have due diligence. See, you are told what to believe, given propaganda, and you just run with it, no questions asked... simply running on cognitive bias and confirmation bias, with no thought...

"An ex-boyfriend has come forward to say that in six years of dating Ford, she never mentioned a sexual assault, had no fear of flying, lived comfortably in a tiny home with only one front door, once coached a friend on how to take a polygraph, contrary to her sworn testimony -- and also lied about stealing $600 from him."

Oh so you believe "ex" more, because, uhm, they have no axe to grind? LOL

I never said I believe either one 100%. But even on the surface, it's more likely that Ford is accurate, just based on statistics. And that's not to mention that he has other accusets and that he obviously lied about small matters under oath. These things will be a permanent blot on his reputation on the court for life.

Like Trump who had over a dozen accusers and bragged about doing exactly such things, Kavanaugh is another likely case of a man "getting away with it". That will likely have an effect on the midterms. If you think #metoo is a passing fad, you don't have a good grasp of history.

"should the inebriated 17-year-old version of Brett Kavanaugh be taken into consideration when he's applying for a job decades later?"
That's an excellent question. Some people do change significantly, while some people do not. We certainly cannot assume that a particular person has changed (in the ways that matter at least), just because much time has passed. Thus, the burden of proof would lie on Judge Kavanaugh, to convince the public that he has in fact changed. He could have done it through a number of ways: contrition, evidence of his current sobriety, respect to women etc. But he has chosen not do any of that.

I had a conversation with a lawyer friend recently and he opened my mind to the possibility that Dr. Ford is lying about all of this. That seems so unlikely to me on so many levels (why would she expose herself publicly? why would she make all this up? she seems so fragile in the first place - would she voluntarily take on this public spectacle? etc., etc.) but what if my lawyer friend - and many of the readers here - are right?

Certainly exposed was Brett Kavanaugh's inordinate affection for beer and partying and getting stupid on alcohol with his frat buddies (dude). Not exactly who I want on the highest court in the land making important decisions that affect us all.... but what's done is done.

But if Ford is lying.... why? What's her motivation? Was she paid? Was it worth it? I have a hard time understanding this.

People can change over time or regret past mistakes, but crimes don’t go away and victims remain.

Kavanaugh wasn’t being investigated for having a history of being an inebriated teen. He was being investigated for sexual assault.

The “former versions of ourselves” are relevant to our “present reality” if we have committed a crime. It’s especially relevant if we are being considered for a position of importance.

Alcohol/drug consumption to the point of blackout should not absolve one of a crime. If a defendant claims no memory of the crime, evidence and/or witnesses testimony would be sufficient in building a case. In the case of Kavanaugh, Dr. Ford states that she was able to recall with 100% that Brett Kavanaugh was the man who assaulted her. She also testified that she told her husband and a therapist that her attacker was Brett Kavanaugh.

People in positions of power do not always exhibit ethical behavior. These people, more than anyone else, need to be held to a higher standard. A lifetime seat on the Supreme Court is an important role and this person’s fitness should be carefully considered; especially if accused of a felony---at any age.